WWI Digest 2292
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Civil Vs. Great
by "Michael S. Alvarado"
2) Re: New Roseplane
by Dennis Ugulano
3) Stropp help
by bucky@ptdprolog.net
4) Re: WWI digest 2258-2274
by Marc Flake
5) Re: Stropp Changes
by bucky@ptdprolog.net
6) Re: FT-17 interior
by Marc Flake
7) Re: Civil Vs. Great
by "Michael S. Alvarado"
8) Re: Civil Vs. Great
by Brent_A_Theobald@notes.seagate.com
9) Custom Decals
by "Dale Beamish"
10) Re: New Roseplane
by Brent_A_Theobald@notes.seagate.com
11) Re: Civil Vs. Great
by Albatrosdv@aol.com
12) Re: Stropp Changes
by KarrArt@aol.com
13) Re: OVERLOAD WAS: Eduard Albatros
by KarrArt@aol.com
14) Re: New Roseplane
by "David Calhoun"
15) Re: modern warfare in 1914- a refreshing disgression
by Mark Miller
16) Re: FW: Camel seat
by KarrArt@aol.com
17) Re: modern warfare in 1914- a refreshing disgression
by KarrArt@aol.com
18) 24/30 of my excellent adventure
by "Brad & Merville"
19) Re: modern warfare in 1914- a refreshing disgression
by "DAVID BURKE"
20) Re: FT-17 interior
by "DAVID BURKE"
21) Re: FW: Camel seat
by "DAVID BURKE"
22) Re: 24/30 of my excellent adventure
by "DAVID BURKE"
23) Re: modern warfare in 1914- a refreshing disgression
by smperry@mindspring.com
24) Re: New Roseplane
by BStett3770@aol.com
25) Re: Early Fokkers
by Ernest Thomas
26) Re: New Roseplane
by "Dale Beamish"
27) Re: FT-17 interior
by Ernest Thomas
28) WWI Photo Album
by Goebel Family
29) Re: modern warfare in 1914- a refreshing disgression
by Al Superczynski
30) Re: modern warfare in 1914- a refreshing disgression
by Mark Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:20:36 -0400
From: "Michael S. Alvarado"
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: Civil Vs. Great
Message-ID: <390787CE.D63D46A5@bellatlantic.net>
Essentially, "T'was a hell of a war as I recall, but still it was better than
non at all".
Alvie
DAVID BURKE wrote:
> Mark said:
>
> >Hi
> >I think David B made the point that WW1 was not a war fought with new
> technology and old tactics, I'd kinda always thought that was exactly the
> problem, or at least that defensive weaponry (the machine gun) had outpaced
> offensive weaponry which resulted in the nastiest stalemate imaginable. But
> I guess I always thought of "modern" tactics as the combined arms approach
> (blitzkreig) that one doesn't see used until ww2. (altho Shane posted that
> this tactic was at least concieved in ww1 altho to late to change the
> outcome - surprise to me} then you seem to support this theory with the
> inexperience of the conscript army - which I don't understand - how does
> that matters in regard to this question. I'm no scholar of ww1 and would
> honestly like to hear more on the basis for your oppinions. (apologies in
> advance if I messed up your position, or missed a later post )
> >
>
> Strangely enough, the Germans didn't invent the combined-arms tactics with
> shock troops - that credit has to be given to the Russians on the Eastern
> front during WWI. They found that an intensely-concentrated artillery
> barrage on one point in the line which only lasts for a few hours has
> several effects: one, you haven't pulverized the battlefield into mud and
> craters, and two, since the barrage is short, as opposed to days or weeks,
> the enemy cannot move counter elements to stave off the attack. Third, by
> using a small cadre of shock troops to attack the point, you avoid the
> logistical and organizational nightmare of having to mobilize an entire
> division or corps to hit the line, so the actual attack is much quicker.
> Also, one can more easily coordinate a small unit of men with an artillery
> advance (or 'marching fire').
>
> Strangely enough, even though the Russians used this with success, they
> apparently FORGOT the tactic - but the Germans didn't.
>
> What was WWI fought about? This question cannot be sated with the
> traditional 3M response (militarism, monarchy, and the other one - might
> have been 'morons'). However, one of the main factors was France. Ever
> since 1871 - the end of the Franco-Prussian War - Bismarck, the wiley
> statesman, insisted in every way that France should be kept politically and
> financially isolated from the other powers in Europe; and in this he
> succeeded - until his dismissal in 1890 by some punk kid by the name of
> Willie. Upon the departure of Bismarck, France went into feverish overdrive
> to build alliances: first with Russia, and then later, with their
> traditional enemy, Great Britain.
>
> The alliances in Europe were not always publicly known. The alliance
> between Turkey and Germany for instance, wasn't even known about until a
> fleeing German cruiser found refuge in a Turkish harbor - the pursuing Brits
> were quite pissed off about that. It is questionable whether the
> Dardanelles strategy was more to supply the Russians, or to punish the Turk
> for his apparent treachery. But the alliances have alot of the guilt for
> the War. Another big reason was the leaders and statesmen of the time.
> Look at Kaiser Willie - pompous, micro-managing, and conspicuously absent at
> the moment of truth. His 'blank check' to the Austrian government (in
> essence, when Austria told Germany that they were going to attack the
> Serbs - allies of Russia - in Bosnia to retaliate for Ferdinand and Sophie
> , Willie said 'do whatever
> you have to do - and went on a cruise on his yacht), further provoked the
> Russian mobilization, and by that time, it was too late to stop the
> Juggernaut.
>
> It says alot of Willie's character that this blustering monarch, who
> loved uniforms and the military, loved playing soldier and sailor, who loved
> having his ego stroked day and night - when presented the articles of war by
> his Generals, said, "Gentlemen, you shall rue the day that you forced me to
> sign this". And of course, you have Nick on the Russian side, Lloyd-George
> for the Brits, and our own patent imbecile in Washington D.C.
>
> I still prefer the 'Black Adder' explanation of WWI: the Great war
> happened simply because it was too much bother NOT to have a war.
>
> DB
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:25:21 -0400
From: Dennis Ugulano
To: "wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu"
Subject: Re: New Roseplane
Message-ID: <200004262025_MC2-A2C1-7429@compuserve.com>
Barry,
Excellent choice of a very unusual kit and in the right scale.
Although I must say it would be a very impressive kit in 1/48th. Oooooo.
Did I say that?
For anyone wanting to build this kit, there is a fair amount of
information available. And you can even look at a real one on my web site.
Barry, where were you in 1992?
Dennis Ugulano
email: Uggies@compuserve.com
http://members.xoom.com/Uggies/dju.htm
Page Revised 2/6/00
"Every modeller will rise to his own level of masochism"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 20:40:09 -0400
From: bucky@ptdprolog.net
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Stropp help
Message-ID: <3900F4E9.CA501E74@ptdprolog.net>
Thanks to Steve, Otis, Pedro and Witold on the wash question. I like the
honey color of the enamel wood...any ideas on a similar color in
acrylics from Poly-scale or Aeromaster?
Mike Muth
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 19:38:49 -0500
From: Marc Flake
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: WWI digest 2258-2274
Message-ID: <39078C19.53A9@airmail.net>
Allan:
I have all these. But I don't know how to send them to the right
place. Would I just use the wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu or should I use
another address.
I use Netscape for my email at home.
Marc Flake
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 20:41:24 -0400
From: bucky@ptdprolog.net
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: Stropp Changes
Message-ID: <3900F534.7EFFE591@ptdprolog.net>
Thanks to Cyg and RK for the neat info on this one. Funny how an airplane as
well researched as this one still causes problems....makes me feel better about
some of my questionable color decisions.
Mike Muth
John & Allison Cyganowski wrote:
> Therr was a rather caustic letter to the editor of WWI Aero by Dan-San
> Abbott about the changes to Stropp. Apparently DSA has discovered who the
> pilot was and when the Aircraft was shot down.
>
> His criticism boils down to this: Stropp left the factory in Mauve/Green
> camo, with Iron Crosses. He complains that for the restoration, the Loz was
> wrong in the first place. 2nd, now that the crosses have been changed, the
> insignia & the Loz are both wrong. I wouldn't want to debate him.
>
> Cyg.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 19:41:44 -0500
From: Marc Flake
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: FT-17 interior
Message-ID: <39078CC8.60C2@airmail.net>
Thanks guys, we're getting close. I always thought there would be more
"stuff" in the fighting compartment.
On the French museum site, there looks like some "stuff" attached to the
back wall. I'm pretty sure some of it would be extra magazines or
shells. However, I would like to see how it was arranged on the wall.
Hopefully, Matt will be able to find that children's book.
Marc
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:42:53 -0400
From: "Michael S. Alvarado"
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: Civil Vs. Great
Message-ID: <39078D05.21014DF6@bellatlantic.net>
Let's not forget that while weaponry had far outstripped tactics by the start of WWI. The major impediment to the development of new tactics was communications, command and control, good old C3. Throughout history commanders could only control their troops up th the moment they were committed to battle. Once the troops were sent forward it was virtually impossible to recall them or
redirect them as no reliable means of communications was available. Once troops were out of bugle, drumm or flare shot, they were on their own. To ensure a modicum of control, commanders were forced to concentrate their troops into tight masses (i.e. the Napoleonic cloumn) this was acceptable as long as weapons accuracy and range were limited (smooth bore musket, slow to load and fire
2-3 shots/minute accuracy less than 60 yards). Unfortuantely rifled, breach-loading artillery and small arms were developed in the late nineteenth century (americam Civil War, Franco-Prussian War but the practical hand held radio didn't come along until WWII. Western front commanders could only control when the troops went over the top, after that they were on their own. They advanced
in loose but compact formations so that company and battaloin level officers could be within whistle range making them extremely vulnerable to accurate, long range artillery and small arms fire but as for directing divisions once they were turned loose - no way. Infiltration of heavily defended targets by small groups (squads) of men spread out and covered by mutually supporting small
arms, artillery and air support was not practical without portable voice communications. A very real differnce between WWI and WWII.
My nickels worth
Alvie
Lance Krieg wrote:
> Well, I meant to stay on the sidelines for this one, but can't resist.
>
> I subscribe to the theory that technology and tactics are always in a state of flux, and usually (but not always) the winner of a war is the party that best adapts his tactical approach to the state of the technological art.
>
> Cases in point:
> 1. The stirrup and the rise of chivalry
> 2. The English longbow and the fall of chivalry
> 3. The Swiss pike and the rise of the citzen soldier
>
> The American Civil War demonstrated that the rifled musket had made the tactics of Napoleon (who was a master of combined-arms, was he not?) obsolete. By WWI, the gap between defensive technology and suitable tactics was even wider; it took four years to device a way to break through opposing defenses. And by then the exhaustion of the German economy had effectively sealed the deal.
>
> Just idle ruminations at my employer's expense...
>
> Lance
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:11:32 -0500
From: Brent_A_Theobald@notes.seagate.com
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: Civil Vs. Great
Message-ID:
Howdy!
I think I might be posting this to the wrong thread, but what the hell...
We were discussing the advances of technology and war pertaining to WWI and
II. As I recall the Springfield Rifle Model 1919 (?) was used with good
results by the Afghans against the Russians in the 1980's and 90's. Part of
this was poor Russian tactics and good Afghans tactics. The Russians
allowed themselves to come into range for the Springfield (1500 yards max),
yet the Afghans were out of range for the Russians who were armed with
AK-47's. At any rate, as I understand it, the Springfield Rifle, which was
designed for WWI, cannot reasonable be improved. This weapon could still be
used successfully today under the right conditions. (I wonder what the
Chechens are using?) I consider automatic weapons such as Tommy guns and
BAR's to be new designs which followed their own evolutionary paths where
the Springfield was the pinnacle of that type of design.
Please note all of this was from memory.
Later!
Brent
PS: Just playing devil's advocate to myself. I suppose "under the right
conditions" a flint lock pistol or a bronze knife could be used
successfully. :)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 19:02:35 -0600
From: "Dale Beamish"
To: "List"
Subject: Custom Decals
Message-ID: <006f01bfafe4$812ede80$5a2fb8a1@darcy>
Did you ever want to have those subjects done that the decal companies won't
do? I have to let the cat out of the bag here. Mike Franklin a member of our
list has just sent me a package with AMAZING work! I had asked him to do an
Ace of Spades for Bohnings Alb, Lenz's witch riding the bird looking through
a telescope and a zig/zag band from one of the profiles in the Squadron
Alb. book, as well as the circle K markings for Kallmunzer from Jasta 78. It
came with all the stars as well! Four sizes of stars! The work on Lenz's
witch is Fantastic! As are all the markings. VERY HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!
Contact Mike Franklin and do yourself a great favor at:
E-mail Address(es):
modelhound@earthlink.net
Besides he just got married and you all know how distracting that can be
during the model building .... LOL
Excellent work Mike!
Dale
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:13:39 -0500
From: Brent_A_Theobald@notes.seagate.com
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: New Roseplane
Message-ID:
Howdy!
> Excellent choice of a very unusual kit and in the right scale.
>Although I must say it would be a very impressive kit in 1/48th.
Then order one from Eric at Copper State! :) I think he has pictures of one
built by Candice on his website.
Later!
Brent
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 21:35:19 EDT
From: Albatrosdv@aol.com
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: Civil Vs. Great
Message-ID:
In a message dated 4/26/00 8:14:05 PM EST, Brent_A_Theobald@notes.seagate.com
writes:
<< At any rate, as I understand it, the Springfield Rifle, which was
designed for WWI, cannot reasonable be improved. This weapon could still be
used successfully today under the right conditions. >>
Actually, the Model *1903* Springfield rifle was used as a sniper rifle by
the Marines in Vietnam, and IIRC, it is still used as such today. The weapon
has a "sporterized" stock about half the weight of the original military
stock.
Tom Cleaver
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 21:44:48 EDT
From: KarrArt@aol.com
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: Stropp Changes
Message-ID:
In a message dated 4/26/00 5:42:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
bucky@ptdprolog.net writes:
<< Thanks to Cyg and RK for the neat info on this one. Funny how an airplane
as
well researched as this one still causes problems....makes me feel better
about
some of my questionable color decisions.
Mike Muth >>
The detective work that goes into stuff like this is what makes it
interesting for me!
RK
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 21:44:54 EDT
From: KarrArt@aol.com
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: OVERLOAD WAS: Eduard Albatros
Message-ID: <9a.3ff7439.2638f596@aol.com>
In a message dated 4/26/00 3:17:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
sdw@qld.mim.com.au writes:
<<
..and I'll start a scratchbuilt 1/48 0/100. Hadji's mount y'know. I need
it to sit with the Biff and (one day) a Vimy
Shane
>>
might as well go for a 0/1500.........maybe try a Kangaroo- now there's a
plane that would need explaining, plus I doubt if there'll be a Datafile
about it before at least 2019.
RK
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 22:00:28 -0700
From: "David Calhoun"
To:
Subject: Re: New Roseplane
Message-ID: <01bc01bfb005$834622c0$c2083ccc@oemcomputer>
The Copperstate is a Pfalz DR.1, I believe the Rosemont one is a Siemens
Schunkert (sic) DR.1. Same engine, different aircraft.
Dave Calhoun
-----Original Message-----
From: Brent_A_Theobald@notes.seagate.com
To: Multiple recipients of list
Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: New Roseplane
>
>
>
>Howdy!
>
>> Excellent choice of a very unusual kit and in the right scale.
>>Although I must say it would be a very impressive kit in 1/48th.
>
>Then order one from Eric at Copper State! :) I think he has pictures of one
>built by Candice on his website.
>
>Later!
>
>Brent
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: 26 Apr 2000 18:58:57 -0700
From: Mark Miller
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: modern warfare in 1914- a refreshing disgression
Message-ID: <20000427015857.5077.cpmta@c012.sfo.cp.net>
On Wed, 26 April 2000, "Francisca e Pedro" wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Shane Weier
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 12:13 PM
> Subject: RE: modern warfare in 1914- a refreshing disgression
>
>
> > Diego says:
> >
> > > And of course, you guys must remember the spread of mutinies
> > > in the french
> > > army in 1917 and1918 and other mutinies more famous of the
> > > russians troops
> > > in October of 1917.
> >
> And then Shane adds:
> >
> > Not well known but very important in this thread - by October 1918 the
> > Australian troops in France were also on the brink of mutiny. They had
> > suffered casualties equivalent to the death or wounding of two out of
> every
> > three men, many "battalions" were down to not much over reinforced company
> > strength. Several battalions "jacked up" (refused orders) and were
> > threatened with courts martial and death penalties by Allied high command
> > which Monash had the independance (and Government backing) to reject. In
> > essence they were exhausted, physically and mentally by three years almost
> > constantly in the front line. I am intensely proud of how well our
> soldiers
> > fought, but there is obviously a limit beyond which no-one could be
> expected
> > to perform, and they had reached it. It was time, and past time, for
> someone
> > else to bear the brunt.
Hi
I don't find it surprising at all that these people finaly rebeled. More surpring is that it took so long. It is amazing what a human being can tolerate.
Something that has always puzzled me was the attitude here in the United States. From all I've seen it appears that the Americans were eager to go fight, and saw it as some sort of grand romantic adventure. it was I believe a volunteer army. It didn't take them long to lose these delusions but how could they be so misinformed in the first place. Was it just arrogence (we'll go over there and straighten this whole mess out) or did they honestly not know.
Mark
_______________________________________________________________________
Why pay when you don't have to? Get AltaVista Free Internet Access now!
http://jump.altavista.com/freeaccess4.go
_______________________________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 22:04:06 EDT
From: KarrArt@aol.com
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Camel seat
Message-ID: <6f.42cd368.2638fa16@aol.com>
In a message dated 4/25/00 10:21:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
SOLOSYD@opssc.wa.gov.au writes:
<< DAVID BURKE [mailto:dora9@sprynet.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 11:51 AM
> To: David Solosy
> Subject: Re: Camel seat
>
> NOW. Does anyone have a pic of the starboard side of
> Brown's Camel, or
> any 209 Squadron Camel, so I can see the most likely location for the
> Rotherham pump? It could have been in the following three locations:
>
> On the starboard undercarriage leg, or
>
> On either the front or rear starboard cabane struts.
> >>
well, Windsock 13/4 July/Aug 97 had a pic of a 209 lineup and the goofy pump
ABSOLUTELY NO 'BOUT A DOUBT it shows on the landing gear leg.
RK
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 22:16:48 EDT
From: KarrArt@aol.com
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: modern warfare in 1914- a refreshing disgression
Message-ID: <9f.488f1b2.2638fd10@aol.com>
In a message dated 4/26/00 7:02:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
albatros1212@altavista.com writes:
<< it was I believe a volunteer army. It didn't take them long to lose these
delusions but how could they be so misinformed in the first place. Was it
just arrogence (we'll go over there and straighten this whole mess out) or
did they honestly not know.
Mark
>>
It was a drafted army (otherwise my grangfather wouldn't have come down off
his mountain to go fight in some "damned European mess"!)
An odd little fact I bumped into in "Over There- the American Soldier in
World War I" is "a tiny army of 200,000 and expand it to a force of four
million men (two million in France).....by the end of the war the Americans
had more men fighting in France than the British did".
The whole American foray into WW I has always puzzled me- it's almost like
some mass psychosis like negative version of Beatlemania or something swept
the land, or at least siezed those with a voice and power. WW II made sense
for the US, but WW I?
RK
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 22:18:52 -0400
From: "Brad & Merville"
To: "Multiple recipients of list"
Subject: 24/30 of my excellent adventure
Message-ID: <012301bfafee$f08fdae0$c78c5ad1@The_Grenade.Workgroup>
Greetings from Brad's computer,
Had a busy two days .. I went to Trenton to see the Halifax yesterday. ..
spent two hours looking at it and talking to some of the guys restoring it.
Hopefully I will shoot the Haida tomorrow morning. (OT stuff .. I shot a
roll on the F5L at Garber last week)
Today Brad and I went to visit Ron Lowry (think RK quality scratchbuilt
models and paintings - his work is in the scratchbuilt book). After plying
us with food and alcohol (well, mne anyway .. Brad was driving) He showed us
all his stuff and Brad bought an original painting of Bishop in his SE5a
downing Roosen in a Rumpler from him. . . . Highlights of Ron's OT work
... 1/24 RE8, Ni.17, MoS A.I, SPAD VII, Fokker E.V, Hansa-Brandenburg
Star-Strutter, NI.28. Under construction: Dolphin (WOW!!!), SE5 (not SE5a),
Albatros, HS-L, Eindecker. ot. .. Defiant (WOW), Gamecock, Consolidated
P2Y-3 flying boat, various racers. There were others as well, but these are
what stand out in my mind. Brad just grabbed the book showing these
aircraft .. the new Alcorn Scratchbuilders book. . Ron's work is on pages
78-88 for those wanting to see what I am talking about.
After a trip to another hobby shop where we both made some ot purchases it
was back to Brad's to do laundry and packing. ... such fun.
My return journey starts in about 14 hours .. wheeeee NOT !!!!
Regards,
Bob Pearson
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 21:29:23 -0500
From: "DAVID BURKE"
To:
Subject: Re: modern warfare in 1914- a refreshing disgression
Message-ID: <004f01bfaff0$68154720$fd8eaec7@dora9sprynet.com>
Mark Miller wrote:
>
>Hi
>I don't find it surprising at all that these people finaly rebeled. More
surpring is that it took so long. It is amazing what a human being can
tolerate.
>
>Something that has always puzzled me was the attitude here in the United
States. From all I've seen it appears that the Americans were eager to go
fight, and saw it as some sort of grand romantic adventure. it was I believe
a volunteer army. It didn't take them long to lose these delusions but how
could they be so misinformed in the first place. Was it just arrogence
(we'll go over there and straighten this whole mess out) or did they
honestly not know.
>
>Mark
>
Mark,
I guess I'd be lying if I told you this on a basis of full authority,
but it was a combination of the 'let's win the War' and the romantic
adventure (remember Ernie Hemmhoroid - er, Hemmingway?). You must remember
that from the outset of the War, Woody Wilson kept promising and promising
the American public that we would stay out of the War. As far as knowing
about the bloodshed, well that was all pretty well reported here in the
States. On the other hand, America had been bombarded, just like the
British populace, with horror stories about 'The Ghastly Hun' and his
purported atrocities against nuns and babies. Whose blood doesn't go up
upon hearing the story of a British PoW who sent a postcard from prison back
to his parents - 'Dear Mother and Father, I am a prisoner, but I am fine and
they treat me well here. Give my little brother Albert (or Mike, or Tom,
Dick, Harry, Manny, Moe, or Jack) this stamp for his collection. Love
(whatever). Apparently, this PoW's parents knew that something was wrong
and peeled up the stamp, and on the back, it was supposedly written:
"They've cut out my TONGUE". Of course, the whole story was pure fiction,
but those tales made it around, and even though our government was at peace,
the American blood was up. The Lusitania really evoked a cry of outrage
from the U.S. The torpedoing of a 100% passenger ship (it was carrying
munitions and war materiel as well as passengers as proved by the
examination of the wreck on the seafloor) was just the most abominable act
imaginable. Stories of poison gas and valiant battles in the trenches
slowly did their work, and if I remember correctly, the Army and Navy were
flooded with volunteers when we entered the War. A similar situation
occurred on Dec. 8, 1941 - the day after Pearl Harbor. A lot of people
volunteered, because those dirty Japs had dared bomb our airfields all
across the Pacific, and nearly wiped out the Navy. This country has, in the
past, had a noble sense of outrage (and if I can more accurately speak of
the Civil War, where the male populations of ENTIRE TOWNS went and signed
up. Glory and adventure, but also a sense of moral outrage on both sides).
America received alot from the First World War: probably the most
important was that we left our country in a large number for the first time,
and more Americans had traveled to foreign countries than ever before. One
very interesting story is that of Black American soldiers in France. Many
got caught up in Parisian culture and stayed. 'Black entertainment' became
quite popular (such as Jazz and dance), but it wasn't the 'plantation
negro'-type stuff that was seen by the American public (outside of the
Cotton Club in Harlem), it was vibrant, and developed in many directions
because of the very liberal atmosphere over there. It was in Paris that
Josephine Baker found stardom, and the cultural exchanges went both ways.
Alot of that music was the stuff that Hitler eventually forbade the German
public from listening to as it was 'decadent'. But a displaced American
culture took root in Paris of the late teens and 20's, and it absolutely
THRIVED. So much art and genius was recognized there that had been ignored
here in the States.
But I am straying off of the original topic - Mark, the U.S. entered for
the reasons you stated, probably neither more one than the other.
DB
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 21:30:32 -0500
From: "DAVID BURKE"
To:
Subject: Re: FT-17 interior
Message-ID: <007301bfaff1$cb8da4e0$fd8eaec7@dora9sprynet.com>
Wow! Hey! I have a FT-17 kit myself! I guess I need to head back down to
New Orleans...
DB
-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Flake
To: Multiple recipients of list
Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: FT-17 interior
>Thanks guys, we're getting close. I always thought there would be more
>"stuff" in the fighting compartment.
>
>On the French museum site, there looks like some "stuff" attached to the
>back wall. I'm pretty sure some of it would be extra magazines or
>shells. However, I would like to see how it was arranged on the wall.
>
>Hopefully, Matt will be able to find that children's book.
>
>Marc
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 21:32:20 -0500
From: "DAVID BURKE"
To:
Subject: Re: FW: Camel seat
Message-ID: <007401bfaff1$cc67d840$fd8eaec7@dora9sprynet.com>
>well, Windsock 13/4 July/Aug 97 had a pic of a 209 lineup and the goofy
pump
>ABSOLUTELY NO 'BOUT A DOUBT it shows on the landing gear leg.
>RK
NO FOOLING?
DB
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 21:39:20 -0500
From: "DAVID BURKE"
To:
Subject: Re: 24/30 of my excellent adventure
Message-ID: <007501bfaff1$ccfd6180$fd8eaec7@dora9sprynet.com>
Hey BP,
Let me apologize early for the number of e-mails I have sent you - work
proceeding normally...
DB
-----Original Message-----
From: Brad & Merville
To: Multiple recipients of list
Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 9:23 PM
Subject: 24/30 of my excellent adventure
>Greetings from Brad's computer,
>
>Had a busy two days .. I went to Trenton to see the Halifax yesterday. ..
>spent two hours looking at it and talking to some of the guys restoring it.
>Hopefully I will shoot the Haida tomorrow morning. (OT stuff .. I shot a
>roll on the F5L at Garber last week)
>
>
>Today Brad and I went to visit Ron Lowry (think RK quality scratchbuilt
>models and paintings - his work is in the scratchbuilt book). After plying
>us with food and alcohol (well, mne anyway .. Brad was driving) He showed
us
>all his stuff and Brad bought an original painting of Bishop in his SE5a
>downing Roosen in a Rumpler from him. . . . Highlights of Ron's OT work
>.. 1/24 RE8, Ni.17, MoS A.I, SPAD VII, Fokker E.V, Hansa-Brandenburg
>Star-Strutter, NI.28. Under construction: Dolphin (WOW!!!), SE5 (not SE5a),
>Albatros, HS-L, Eindecker. ot. .. Defiant (WOW), Gamecock, Consolidated
>P2Y-3 flying boat, various racers. There were others as well, but these are
>what stand out in my mind. Brad just grabbed the book showing these
>aircraft .. the new Alcorn Scratchbuilders book. . Ron's work is on pages
>78-88 for those wanting to see what I am talking about.
>
>After a trip to another hobby shop where we both made some ot purchases it
>was back to Brad's to do laundry and packing. ... such fun.
>
>
>My return journey starts in about 14 hours .. wheeeee NOT !!!!
>
>
>Regards,
> Bob Pearson
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 23:02:10 -0400
From: smperry@mindspring.com
To:
Subject: Re: modern warfare in 1914- a refreshing disgression
Message-ID: <008401bfaff4$fb7086c0$420356d1@default>
My Grandfather too was a draftee. He applied for exemption as a
farmer...nice try Grandad. I even have a copy of his draft registration
courtesy of the State of Tennessee.
He didn't "have his blood up" but he went and did his job. He was fortunate
in that he was miles and miles from the Western front and the Government
treated him to a year of college in France after the war while the combat
troops went home first. One of the very very few privates who served during
WWI who were benefitted and not harmed or worse by the War.
While I had his canteen and still have his helmet and mess kit, none have a
bullet dent, hovever I sure understand the "There but for the grace of God,
I might not be goin' at all" sentiments expressed earlier.
sp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 23:05:47 EDT
From: BStett3770@aol.com
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: New Roseplane
Message-ID:
Hi Gang
The Siemens Schuckert DDr-1 is a one off - Push pull ( twin engine)
experimental Triplane.
Go t my site for drawing. www.swiftsite.com/rosemonthobby
Keep Modeling
Barry
Rosemont Hobby
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 22:12:57 -0500
From: Ernest Thomas
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: Early Fokkers
Message-ID: <3907B035.297FF5A0@bellsouth.net>
Lance Krieg wrote:
> Ern, there are GAs for all the early Fokker biplanes in Windsock 7/1, if you have the magazine.
Alas, I do not. But seeing as I'm too busy to even think about doing a few rotary to inline engine conversions, it's not a problem. But anyway, thanks for the
tip.
E.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 21:08:53 -0600
From: "Dale Beamish"
To:
Subject: Re: New Roseplane
Message-ID: <001501bfaff6$06eeeb80$d232b8a1@darcy>
What about doing it again in 48 scale Barry? Any others out there that would
like this one in the proper scale? Know I sure would!
Dale
----- Original Message -----
From:
To: Multiple recipients of list
Sent: 26 April, 2000 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: New Roseplane
> Hi Gang
>
> The Siemens Schuckert DDr-1 is a one off - Push pull ( twin engine)
> experimental Triplane.
>
> Go t my site for drawing. www.swiftsite.com/rosemonthobby
>
> Keep Modeling
> Barry
> Rosemont Hobby
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 22:19:44 -0500
From: Ernest Thomas
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: FT-17 interior
Message-ID: <3907B1CF.61B5DF98@bellsouth.net>
DAVID BURKE wrote:
> Wow! Hey! I have a FT-17 kit myself! I guess I need to head back down to
> New Orleans...
Can't see anything inside. But don't let that stop you.
E.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:18:05 -0700
From: Goebel Family
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: WWI Photo Album
Message-ID: <3907B16D.D609D2B2@gte.net>
I have the opportunity to copy a WWI photo album, and having never done
this, I'm after some sage advice on the best method,either scanning the
images or taking photos of the photos. The album was put together by the
father of an acquaintance of mine , Morvin Paulson, who recently passed
away. Morvin's dad was a mechanic in the 227th Aero Squadron and
photography was his hobby . I looked through the album once a few years
ago and recall there being many airplane pictures including one of the
Stropp Albatros. I believe most of the pictures were taken either very
late in the war or perhaps even after the Armistice. I would like to get
the copies possible and would appreciate any advice. I have a 35mm
camera with a 50mm lens but have had very little experience using it. As
the photos have been glued in the album it may be hard to scan them so I
may have no option but to photograph them. Any suggestions on film, film
speed, camera settings would be appreciated. Also, if anyone has any
information on the 227th Aero Squadron I think it would be fitting to do
a web page with the pictures and a brief history. I have only a short
time to do this as the album is now in the possession of Morv's son, who
was gracious enough to allow me to make the copies and is eager to have
the album returned. Thanks ahead of time.
Craig Goebel
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 22:38:00 -0500
From: Al Superczynski
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: modern warfare in 1914- a refreshing disgression
Message-ID:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 22:05:06 -0400 (EDT), Mark wrote:
>Something that has always puzzled me was the attitude here in the United States. From all I've seen it appears that the Americans were eager to go fight, and saw it as some sort of grand romantic adventure. it was I believe a volunteer army.
That apparently was the mood of all the original belligerents in
1914 as well. It's not really very surprising that the Americans
would have felt the same way when they finally entered the war......
Al
http://www.up-link.net/~modeleral
------------------------------
Date: 26 Apr 2000 21:21:35 -0700
From: Mark Miller
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: modern warfare in 1914- a refreshing disgression
Message-ID: <20000427042135.22058.cpmta@c012.sfo.cp.net>
On Wed, 26 April 2000, Al Superczynski wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 22:05:06 -0400 (EDT), Mark wrote:
>
> >Something that has always puzzled me was the attitude here in the United States. From all I've seen it appears that the Americans were eager to go fight, and saw it as some sort of grand romantic adventure. it was I believe a volunteer army.
>
> That apparently was the mood of all the original belligerents in
> 1914 as well. It's not really very surprising that the Americans
> would have felt the same way when they finally entered the war......
>
> Al
> http://www.up-link.net/~modeleral
Al
My surprise stems from the fact that the original beligerants probably didn't know yet what they were getting themselves into, after all the war was just begining. I don't think the Americans got there till 1917 {not positive of that date} by which time the true nature of this conflict should have been aparent.
btw thanks RK for the correction on the volunteer thing - learn something new every day.
Mark
_______________________________________________________________________
Why pay when you don't have to? Get AltaVista Free Internet Access now!
http://jump.altavista.com/freeaccess4.go
_______________________________________________________________________
------------------------------
End of WWI Digest 2292
**********************